abelcainsbrother wrote:
I don't have a problem with the hebrew word "male" but using the word "replenish" is still right even today,so why do modern translate change it to"fill" contrary to the evidence?

You just aren't getting it are you?
the Hebrew word male has ALWAYS meant fill!!
The modern translations have NOT changed the meaning of the word male

That is not an opinion, that is not an interpretation, that is a fact of Hebrew scholarship.

If the word "male" has always meant to mean "fill" as you claim then how come it is translated "replenish" in the KJV uses the word "replenish" in both Genesis 1:28 and Genesis 9:1.You would not claim replenish was wrong after Noah's flood,but why in Genesis 1:28? It shows the KJV translators were well aware of what the english word replenish means.

And also the KJV translated "male" into "fill" in Genesis 1:22 so they did know the difference between the words fill and replenish in english.The fact is that "male" can mean both fill and refill depending on the context. So I don't see how you can claim "male" has always mean "fill" when the KJV translators used both replenish and fill at different times. This is what I mean when I say that when I look into this to see who is right and who is wrong it is the critics of the Gap Theory that are wrong and teaching false things. I already explained that these modern translations give a young earth interpretation since about the 1970's.

The translators of the KJV bible could read hebrew,greek and aramaic by the time they were eight years old.

Hebrews 12:2-3 Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith;who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross,despising the shame,and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.

2nd Corinthians 4:4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not,lest the light of this glorious gospel of Christ,who is the image of God,should shine unto them.

abelcainsbrother wrote:
I don't have a problem with the hebrew word "male" but using the word "replenish" is still right even today,so why do modern translate change it to"fill" contrary to the evidence?

You just aren't getting it are you?
the Hebrew word male has ALWAYS meant fill!!
The modern translations have NOT changed the meaning of the word male

That is not an opinion, that is not an interpretation, that is a fact of Hebrew scholarship.

If the word "male" has always meant to mean "fill" as you claim then how come it is translated "replenish" in the KJV uses the word "replenish" in both Genesis 1:28 and Genesis 9:1.You would not claim replenish was wrong after Noah's flood,but why in Genesis 1:28? It shows the KJV translators were well aware of what the english word replenish means.

And also the KJV translated "male" into "fill" in Genesis 1:22 so they did know the difference between the words fill and replenish in english. So I don't see how you can claim "male" has always mean "fill" when the KJV translators used both replenish and fill at different times. This is what I mean when I say that when I look into this to see who is right and who is wrong it is the critics of the Gap Theory that are wrong and teaching false things. I already explained that these modern translations give a young earth interpretation since about the 1970's.

Are you even paying attention to this thread?

That was addressed in my post here.
There's nothing wrong with replenish as a translation, when the KJV was written. You don't seem to be understanding that the English word "replenish" has taken on the meaning of "refill", in modern English.

Again, nothing wrong with replenish, as it meant 400 years ago. "To fill completely".
The issue is your taking the modern English meaning of replenish, "to refill", and saying that's what the Hebrew word male means. There lies your error. And that's an error that is crucial to the Gap Theory.

Basically, if you are wrong, it's a serious blow to the Gap Theory. If you're honest, you will acknowledge that.

1 Corinthians 1:99 God is faithful, through whom you were called into fellowship with His Son, Jesus Christ our Lord.

Audie wrote:
"Christianity is not a joke, but it has some very poor representatives."

abelcainsbrother wrote:
I don't have a problem with the hebrew word "male" but using the word "replenish" is still right even today,so why do modern translate change it to"fill" contrary to the evidence?

You just aren't getting it are you?
the Hebrew word male has ALWAYS meant fill!!
The modern translations have NOT changed the meaning of the word male

That is not an opinion, that is not an interpretation, that is a fact of Hebrew scholarship.

If the word "male" has always meant to mean "fill" as you claim then how come it is translated "replenish" in the KJV uses the word "replenish" in both Genesis 1:28 and Genesis 9:1.You would not claim replenish was wrong after Noah's flood,but why in Genesis 1:28? It shows the KJV translators were well aware of what the english word replenish means.

And also the KJV translated "male" into "fill" in Genesis 1:22 so they did know the difference between the words fill and replenish in english. So I don't see how you can claim "male" has always mean "fill" when the KJV translators used both replenish and fill at different times. This is what I mean when I say that when I look into this to see who is right and who is wrong it is the critics of the Gap Theory that are wrong and teaching false things. I already explained that these modern translations give a young earth interpretation since about the 1970's.

Are you even paying attention to this thread?

That was addressed in my post here.
There's nothing wrong with replenish as a translation, when the KJV was written. You don't seem to be understanding that the English word "replenish" has taken on the meaning of "refill", in modern English.

Again, nothing wrong with replenish, as it meant 400 years ago. "To fill completely".
The issue is your taking the modern English meaning of replenish, "to refill", and saying that's what the Hebrew word male means. There lies your error. And that's an error that is crucial to the Gap Theory.

Basically, if you are wrong, it's a serious blow to the Gap Theory. If you're honest, you will acknowledge that.

Are you sure you sure? Or just going on what you've been taught?Because I can make it replenish or refill and both would be a correct translation in english even if replenish means refill today.How can you claim that it meant just one thing 400 years ago when they used both replenish and fill when translating the hebrew word "male" ? Therefore I cannot believe that it only meant "to fill completely" 400 years ago.They knew the difference 400 years ago.So I've seen this as an anti-Gap Theory myth that gets repeated by critics of the Gap Theory interpretation.This reminds me of people rejecting the rapture because the word rapture is not in the bible,yet it means the same thing as "caught up". It is just word games to me in order to hide something or just not know the truth.

But more I'm kindof shocked why fellow old earthers would accept this translation of "fill" when the word "replenish" would be correct today even for their interpretation.It would actually help you make a biblical case for your interpretation of creation.The KJV bible is very friendly to all old earth interpretations.

Last edited by abelcainsbrother on Sun Jun 04, 2017 2:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Hebrews 12:2-3 Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith;who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross,despising the shame,and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.

2nd Corinthians 4:4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not,lest the light of this glorious gospel of Christ,who is the image of God,should shine unto them.

abelcainsbrother wrote:
I don't have a problem with the hebrew word "male" but using the word "replenish" is still right even today,so why do modern translate change it to"fill" contrary to the evidence?

You just aren't getting it are you?
the Hebrew word male has ALWAYS meant fill!!
The modern translations have NOT changed the meaning of the word male

That is not an opinion, that is not an interpretation, that is a fact of Hebrew scholarship.

If the word "male" has always meant to mean "fill" as you claim then how come it is translated "replenish" in the KJV uses the word "replenish" in both Genesis 1:28 and Genesis 9:1.You would not claim replenish was wrong after Noah's flood,but why in Genesis 1:28? It shows the KJV translators were well aware of what the english word replenish means.

And also the KJV translated "male" into "fill" in Genesis 1:22 so they did know the difference between the words fill and replenish in english. So I don't see how you can claim "male" has always mean "fill" when the KJV translators used both replenish and fill at different times. This is what I mean when I say that when I look into this to see who is right and who is wrong it is the critics of the Gap Theory that are wrong and teaching false things. I already explained that these modern translations give a young earth interpretation since about the 1970's.

Are you even paying attention to this thread?

That was addressed in my post here.
There's nothing wrong with replenish as a translation, when the KJV was written. You don't seem to be understanding that the English word "replenish" has taken on the meaning of "refill", in modern English.

Again, nothing wrong with replenish, as it meant 400 years ago. "To fill completely".
The issue is your taking the modern English meaning of replenish, "to refill", and saying that's what the Hebrew word male means. There lies your error. And that's an error that is crucial to the Gap Theory.

Basically, if you are wrong, it's a serious blow to the Gap Theory. If you're honest, you will acknowledge that.

Are you sure you sure? Or just going on what you've been taught?Because I can make it replenish or refill and both would be a correct translation in english even if replenish means refill today.How can you claim that it meant just one thing 400 years ago when they used both replenish and fill when translating the hebrew word "male" ? Therefore I cannot believe that it only meant "to fill completely" 400 years ago.They knew the difference 400 years ago.So I've seen this as an anti-Gap Theory myth that gets repeated by critics of the Gap Theory interpretation.This reminds me of people rejecting the rapture because the word rapture is not in the bible,yet it means the same thing as "caught up". It is just word games to me in order to hide something or just not know the truth.

Just admit that nothing, ever, will change your mind about the Gap Theory.

That would be the most honest thing you've said.

Yes I'm serious. But don't take my word for it. Do what DBowling said. Get the meaning of male, from 5 Hebrew lexicons.

Are you afraid of the truth?

1 Corinthians 1:99 God is faithful, through whom you were called into fellowship with His Son, Jesus Christ our Lord.

Audie wrote:
"Christianity is not a joke, but it has some very poor representatives."

DBowling wrote:
You just aren't getting it are you?
the Hebrew word male has ALWAYS meant fill!!
The modern translations have NOT changed the meaning of the word male

That is not an opinion, that is not an interpretation, that is a fact of Hebrew scholarship.

If the word "male" has always meant to mean "fill" as you claim then how come it is translated "replenish" in the KJV uses the word "replenish" in both Genesis 1:28 and Genesis 9:1.You would not claim replenish was wrong after Noah's flood,but why in Genesis 1:28? It shows the KJV translators were well aware of what the english word replenish means.

And also the KJV translated "male" into "fill" in Genesis 1:22 so they did know the difference between the words fill and replenish in english. So I don't see how you can claim "male" has always mean "fill" when the KJV translators used both replenish and fill at different times. This is what I mean when I say that when I look into this to see who is right and who is wrong it is the critics of the Gap Theory that are wrong and teaching false things. I already explained that these modern translations give a young earth interpretation since about the 1970's.

Are you even paying attention to this thread?

That was addressed in my post here.
There's nothing wrong with replenish as a translation, when the KJV was written. You don't seem to be understanding that the English word "replenish" has taken on the meaning of "refill", in modern English.

Again, nothing wrong with replenish, as it meant 400 years ago. "To fill completely".
The issue is your taking the modern English meaning of replenish, "to refill", and saying that's what the Hebrew word male means. There lies your error. And that's an error that is crucial to the Gap Theory.

Basically, if you are wrong, it's a serious blow to the Gap Theory. If you're honest, you will acknowledge that.

Are you sure you sure? Or just going on what you've been taught?Because I can make it replenish or refill and both would be a correct translation in english even if replenish means refill today.How can you claim that it meant just one thing 400 years ago when they used both replenish and fill when translating the hebrew word "male" ? Therefore I cannot believe that it only meant "to fill completely" 400 years ago.They knew the difference 400 years ago.So I've seen this as an anti-Gap Theory myth that gets repeated by critics of the Gap Theory interpretation.This reminds me of people rejecting the rapture because the word rapture is not in the bible,yet it means the same thing as "caught up". It is just word games to me in order to hide something or just not know the truth.

Just admit that nothing, ever, will change your mind about the Gap Theory.

That would be the most honest thing you've said.

Yes I'm serious. But don't take my word for it. Do what DBowling said. Get the meaning of male, from 5 Hebrew lexicons.

Are you afraid of the truth?

I thought I explained I have researched this before and I even said I will go back over it and make sure I did'nt overlook something. How do you know them Hebrew lexicons are correct? Because you have to imagine that the KJV trnslators did not know the difference between "fill' and "refill" when they translated the bible,Is that what you're implying? Because I already showed that they did know the difference.Are you claiming the KJV translators just made up the word "replenish" and stuck it inb their without justification because it only meant "fill"back then? They just made up the word?

But I'm kindof shocked why it would be such a big deal to fellow old earthers when the word "replenish" is the correct translation for their interpretation also.I mean it can help you make a case for your interpretation and it is right.The KJV is very friendly to old earthers even if you don't believe the Gap Theory.It helps the others too make a biblical case for their interpretation.

Hebrews 12:2-3 Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith;who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross,despising the shame,and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.

2nd Corinthians 4:4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not,lest the light of this glorious gospel of Christ,who is the image of God,should shine unto them.

abelcainsbrother wrote:
If the word "male" has always meant to mean "fill" as you claim then how come it is translated "replenish" in the KJV uses the word "replenish" in both Genesis 1:28 and Genesis 9:1.You would not claim replenish was wrong after Noah's flood,but why in Genesis 1:28? It shows the KJV translators were well aware of what the english word replenish means.

And also the KJV translated "male" into "fill" in Genesis 1:22 so they did know the difference between the words fill and replenish in english. So I don't see how you can claim "male" has always mean "fill" when the KJV translators used both replenish and fill at different times. This is what I mean when I say that when I look into this to see who is right and who is wrong it is the critics of the Gap Theory that are wrong and teaching false things. I already explained that these modern translations give a young earth interpretation since about the 1970's.

Are you even paying attention to this thread?

That was addressed in my post here.
There's nothing wrong with replenish as a translation, when the KJV was written. You don't seem to be understanding that the English word "replenish" has taken on the meaning of "refill", in modern English.

Again, nothing wrong with replenish, as it meant 400 years ago. "To fill completely".
The issue is your taking the modern English meaning of replenish, "to refill", and saying that's what the Hebrew word male means. There lies your error. And that's an error that is crucial to the Gap Theory.

Basically, if you are wrong, it's a serious blow to the Gap Theory. If you're honest, you will acknowledge that.

Are you sure you sure? Or just going on what you've been taught?Because I can make it replenish or refill and both would be a correct translation in english even if replenish means refill today.How can you claim that it meant just one thing 400 years ago when they used both replenish and fill when translating the hebrew word "male" ? Therefore I cannot believe that it only meant "to fill completely" 400 years ago.They knew the difference 400 years ago.So I've seen this as an anti-Gap Theory myth that gets repeated by critics of the Gap Theory interpretation.This reminds me of people rejecting the rapture because the word rapture is not in the bible,yet it means the same thing as "caught up". It is just word games to me in order to hide something or just not know the truth.

Just admit that nothing, ever, will change your mind about the Gap Theory.

That would be the most honest thing you've said.

Yes I'm serious. But don't take my word for it. Do what DBowling said. Get the meaning of male, from 5 Hebrew lexicons.

Are you afraid of the truth?

I thought I explained I have researched this before and I even said I will go back over it and make sure I did'nt overlook something. How do you know them Hebrew lexicons are correct? Because you have to imagine that the KJV trnslators did not know the difference between "fill' and "refill" when they translated the bible,Is that what you're implying? Because I already showed that they did know the difference.Are you claiming the KJV translators just made up the word "replenish" and stuck it inb their without justification because it only meant "fill"back then? They just made up the word?

But I'm kindof shocked why it would be such a big deal to fellow old earthers when the word "replenish" is the correct translation for their interpretation also.I mean it can help you make a case for your interpretation and it is right.The KJV is very friendly to old earthers even if you don't believe the Gap Theory.It helps the others too make a biblical case for their interpretation.

Instead of spouting off the same stuff you've said before, why are you not finding 5 Hebrew lexicons?

Seriously, are you severely allergic to the truth?

1 Corinthians 1:99 God is faithful, through whom you were called into fellowship with His Son, Jesus Christ our Lord.

Audie wrote:
"Christianity is not a joke, but it has some very poor representatives."

That was addressed in my post here.
There's nothing wrong with replenish as a translation, when the KJV was written. You don't seem to be understanding that the English word "replenish" has taken on the meaning of "refill", in modern English.

Again, nothing wrong with replenish, as it meant 400 years ago. "To fill completely".
The issue is your taking the modern English meaning of replenish, "to refill", and saying that's what the Hebrew word male means. There lies your error. And that's an error that is crucial to the Gap Theory.

Basically, if you are wrong, it's a serious blow to the Gap Theory. If you're honest, you will acknowledge that.

Are you sure you sure? Or just going on what you've been taught?Because I can make it replenish or refill and both would be a correct translation in english even if replenish means refill today.How can you claim that it meant just one thing 400 years ago when they used both replenish and fill when translating the hebrew word "male" ? Therefore I cannot believe that it only meant "to fill completely" 400 years ago.They knew the difference 400 years ago.So I've seen this as an anti-Gap Theory myth that gets repeated by critics of the Gap Theory interpretation.This reminds me of people rejecting the rapture because the word rapture is not in the bible,yet it means the same thing as "caught up". It is just word games to me in order to hide something or just not know the truth.

Just admit that nothing, ever, will change your mind about the Gap Theory.

That would be the most honest thing you've said.

Yes I'm serious. But don't take my word for it. Do what DBowling said. Get the meaning of male, from 5 Hebrew lexicons.

Are you afraid of the truth?

I thought I explained I have researched this before and I even said I will go back over it and make sure I did'nt overlook something. How do you know them Hebrew lexicons are correct? Because you have to imagine that the KJV trnslators did not know the difference between "fill' and "refill" when they translated the bible,Is that what you're implying? Because I already showed that they did know the difference.Are you claiming the KJV translators just made up the word "replenish" and stuck it inb their without justification because it only meant "fill"back then? They just made up the word?

But I'm kindof shocked why it would be such a big deal to fellow old earthers when the word "replenish" is the correct translation for their interpretation also.I mean it can help you make a case for your interpretation and it is right.The KJV is very friendly to old earthers even if you don't believe the Gap Theory.It helps the others too make a biblical case for their interpretation.

Instead of spouting off the same stuff you've said before, why are you not finding 5 Hebrew lexicons?

Seriously, are you severely allergic to the truth?

I have read the link he posted as I said I would.
But what I'm saying is true.It is wrong to claim the KJV translators translated it wrong because the hebrew word "male" meant "fill" 400 years ago.I have already showed that the KJV translators knew the difference between the words "fill" and "replenish" when translating the hebrew word "male" by using both "replenish" and "fill" in the translation. If you are going to claim it is a faulty translation because "male" meant "fill" 400 years ago then you need to explain why the KJV translators translated the word "male" into "replenish" and "fill" at different times depending on the context.Otherwise it is claiming things not true about the KJV translators. I explained why the KJV translators sometimes translated it "replenish" and sometimes "fill".

This shows that they knew the difference and that the critics are wrong.This seems to get looked over just so that they can claim it meant "fill" 400 years ago.Therefore it is wrong to claim that the Hebrew "male" has always meant fill.It is not true.

I have even shown how the science confirms the word replenish is correct also. I mean you yourself know that hominids and neanderthals were around before God created man and woman in Genesis 1.So we can understand why God told them to "replenish" the earth. Because the hominids and neanderthals were extinct. This even confirms the Day Age interpretation too because you have hominids and neanderthals before man as well. And as you know from time to time it has come up when evolution comes up that how can you have hominids and neanderthals evolving into man when God created Adam and Eve and it is a sticking point for them,which is why some read Genesis 1 metaphorically.

I'm not just declaring I'm right,I'm actually showing why I disagree with the critics.Remember this is not a salvation issue,but a truth issue and even if you still disagree after i have explained why the critics are wrong you should not overlook that I have made my case too.It is not like I have not made a case for this,I have.It is not me ignoring or overlooking anything that was presented beng blind and hard-headed about it,set in my Gap theory mind-set,etc. I really don't care much if people agree with this or not,as long as they are saved,all I can do is try to show why I disagree and why this is right and I have.

Hebrews 12:2-3 Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith;who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross,despising the shame,and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.

2nd Corinthians 4:4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not,lest the light of this glorious gospel of Christ,who is the image of God,should shine unto them.

Hebrews 12:2-3 Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith;who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross,despising the shame,and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.

2nd Corinthians 4:4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not,lest the light of this glorious gospel of Christ,who is the image of God,should shine unto them.

abelcainsbrother wrote:
I have read the link he posted as I said I would.

Just saying, I never posted a link to any lexicons...

Let me ask this, do you know what a Hebrew/English lexicon is?
I can point you some if you are unable to somehow find some on your own.

I figured it would be more convincing to you if you discovered the truth about what male, bara, and asah meant by using 5 lexicons of your choice.

BTW the KJV translation is NOT a lexicon.
However, the fact that the NJKV decided to translate male as fill gives you a clue as to what the Hebrew lexicons and other tools of Hebrew scholarship say.

Just so I understand where you are coming from, do you personally believe that the KJV translation is without error?

If you are going to claim it is a faulty translation because "male" meant "fill" 400 years ago then you need to explain why the KJV translators translated the word "male" into "replenish" and "fill" at different times depending on the context.

I think based on context, the KJV translators thought it was more appropriate at times to use the more emphatic English word which (at the time) meant to fill to abundance or fill to overflowing.

Therefore it is wrong to claim that the Hebrew "male" has always meant fill.It is not true.

Again... that is a factually untrue statement... which you would discover for yourself if you ever decide to check out what the Hebrew/English lexicons say.

I have even shown how the science confirms the word replenish is correct also. I mean you yourself know that hominids and neanderthals were around before God created man and woman in Genesis 1.So we can understand why God told them to "replenish" the earth. Because the hominids and neanderthals were extinct.

You are scientifically incorrect here. Humans and neanderthals actually coexisted and interacted with each other. The last Neanderthals in Europe did not go extinct until after humans migrated into and spread throughout Europe.

I'm not just declaring I'm right,I'm actually showing why I disagree with the critics.

It's not critics that you are disagreeing with. You are disagreeing with the discipline of Hebrew scholarship.

It is not me ignoring or overlooking anything that was presented beng blind and hard-headed about it,set in my Gap theory mind-set,etc.

Until you actually do the due diligence to check out what Hebrew lexicons actually says about what male, bara, and asah mean, then the only conclusion that I can draw is you are so invested in the Gap Theory that you are unwilling to do the research to discover the truth about what the Hebrew Scriptures really say.

BTW... You have yet to respond to the fact I presented a couple of times in this thread that the use of bara in Genesis 1:21 to describe the creation of marine life and birds on day 5 directly contradicts the Gap Theory.

abelcainsbrother wrote:
I have read the link he posted as I said I would.

Just saying, I never posted a link to any lexicons...

Let me ask this, do you know what a Hebrew/English lexicon is?
I can point you some if you are unable to somehow find some on your own.

I figured it would be more convincing to you if you discovered the truth about what male, bara, and asah meant by using 5 lexicons of your choice.

BTW the KJV translation is NOT a lexicon.
However, the fact that the NJKV decided to translate male as fill gives you a clue as to what the Hebrew lexicons and other tools of Hebrew scholarship say.

Just so I understand where you are coming from, do you personally believe that the KJV translation is without error?

If you are going to claim it is a faulty translation because "male" meant "fill" 400 years ago then you need to explain why the KJV translators translated the word "male" into "replenish" and "fill" at different times depending on the context.

I think based on context, the KJV translators thought it was more appropriate at times to use the more emphatic English word which (at the time) meant to fill to abundance or fill to overflowing.

Therefore it is wrong to claim that the Hebrew "male" has always meant fill.It is not true.

Again... that is a factually untrue statement... which you would discover for yourself if you ever decide to check out what the Hebrew/English lexicons say.

I have even shown how the science confirms the word replenish is correct also. I mean you yourself know that hominids and neanderthals were around before God created man and woman in Genesis 1.So we can understand why God told them to "replenish" the earth. Because the hominids and neanderthals were extinct.

You are scientifically incorrect here. Humans and neanderthals actually coexisted and interacted with each other. The last Neanderthals in Europe did not go extinct until after humans migrated into and spread throughout Europe.

I'm not just declaring I'm right,I'm actually showing why I disagree with the critics.

It's not critics that you are disagreeing with. You are disagreeing with the discipline of Hebrew scholarship.

It is not me ignoring or overlooking anything that was presented beng blind and hard-headed about it,set in my Gap theory mind-set,etc.

Until you actually do the due diligence to check out what Hebrew lexicons actually says about what male, bara, and asah mean, then the only conclusion that I can draw is you are so invested in the Gap Theory that you are unwilling to do the research to discover the truth about what the Hebrew Scriptures really say.

BTW... You have yet to respond to the fact I presented a couple of times in this thread that the use of bara in Genesis 1:21 to describe the creation of marine life and birds on day 5 directly contradicts the Gap Theory.

DB I have no problem discussing this with you further but you must realize that we are not enemies because we disagree over a creation interpretation.We are brothers in Christ discussing these things and I think it is important to remember this.The truth will be revealed regardless of what me or you think and we'll know who was right and who was wrong.It is OK to disagree in the body of Christ.These arrows that Christians throw at brothers and sisters in Christ over differences do not please God.We are to be a united church and not divide over differences.It hurts the body of Christ when fellow Christians attack each other worse than even non-believers.It makes the church look bad.We can have differences and still pray for the person if we think they are so wrong.This is not a salvation issue.So we need to show grace and brotherly in Christ love if we disagree.I just won't get mad over over different interpretations and I actually like to get into it and search it out to see where each other are coming from.I think we learn from it.

I read the link you posted and I disagree with it and think it is unfair to the KJV translators.It seems to me it is just made up and I doubt they even knew or realized the KJV translators used both the word "replenish" and "fill" in translation for "male" and explained why I disagree.
The hebrew lexicon I looked at when I was researching this said that the hebrew word "male" can mean either fill or refill and not just fill.I also am very aware of what critics claim too defending a young earth interpretation.No I'm not a KJV-onlyist but I just know how the KJV gives an old earth interpretation and these new translations give a young earth interptetation.For instance you even have to admit that just changing the word "replenish" to "fill" gives a different meaning and if "replenish" is correct then you know the earth is old already,but not if "fill" is used.

So when it comes to creation I do prefer the KJV because I'm an old earth creationist but the other bibles are fine for most other things.I'll admit though that I prefer the Alexandrian text over the Byzantine Catholic text.For instance the KJV was translated from Alexandrian text,while these newer translations used the Catholic text(byzantine text) instead.But I'm not a KJV-onlyist and I don't think it is a perfect translation.But I don't think these newer translations are perfect either.I'm just honestly searching out truth wherever it leads me.

How can you claim the KJV translators used the word "replenish" that meant "fill" at the time when in other places they translated it "fill"? It does not make sense what you are implying. They would have used just "fill" like the other translations. So I don't buy it.

Not hominids,but yes it is said neanderthals co-existed with humans I knew that but it is also being looked at from an evolution view-point inwhich life will always survive the exctinction events so that they can evolve.But if there was a gap like I believe then they were not in this world but before man,neither did they co-exist because God created man and woman in Genesis 1 and "bara" is used which means they were new creations that had never been created before.

So it is not me being inconsistant with this interpretation. I have both hominids and neanderthals in the former world - pre-Adamite races.Then after the restoration in Genesis 1 God created man and woman so that there is no contradictions,problems biblically,etc.It just fits very nicely going by this interpretation and again it would make sense that God told man and woman to replenish the earth. It confirms this interpretation to me.

As far as your point about bara,asah and male I'd actually like you to elaborate on it more when you can.Because it would be interesting to me to compare interpretations.

About "bara" in Genesis 1:21 I told you bara is only used 3 times in Genesis 1 and that is one of them times but "asah" is also used with certian life like in Genesis 1:25 so that new life and not new life was produced by God. This is how we know that there was life before this life too,like I explained earlier about "replenish".This is an old earth interpretation too.This is also consistent with the fossil record also,by the way. It is known that neanderthals are different than man is for example and it is hard to think they are related so that man and woman were new creations,which is why they claim they mated with humans.You must pay attention to "bara" and "asah" when reading Genesis 1 closely and again we're going by Genesis 2:1-4 and not just making it up.Like I said it is consistant throughout the whole OT.I'm not making up anything.

Hebrews 12:2-3 Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith;who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross,despising the shame,and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.

2nd Corinthians 4:4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not,lest the light of this glorious gospel of Christ,who is the image of God,should shine unto them.

abelcainsbrother wrote:
DB I have no problem discussing this with you further but you must realize that we are not enemies because we disagree over a creation interpretation.We are brothers in Christ discussing these things and I think it is important to remember this.

I agree...
And it is precisely because I consider you to be a brother in Christ, that I am spending time trying to show you what Scripture actually says. And I am especially concerned about a brother in Christ distorting what Scripture says in an effort to defend an unScriptural tradition.

The hebrew lexicon I looked at when I was researching this said that the hebrew word "male" can mean either fill or refill and not just fill.

I am going to challenge you on that.
Please give me the name of or link to that lexicon. I am unaware of any lexicon anywhere that translates male as "refill". I would like to check out the credentials of one that does.

I'll admit though that I prefer the Alexandrian text over the Byzantine Catholic text.For instance the KJV was translated from Alexandrian text,while these newer translations used the Catholic text(byzantine text) instead.

Going off on a tangent here, but you have it backwards.
1. The King James NT is based on the the Textus Receptus that Erasmus (a Roman Catholic) put together which is based on the Byzantine text family.
2. The 'modern' translations generally use the older Alexandrian Text for their translations of the NT.

However, the difference between the Alexandrian and Byzantine Greek NT Texts have very little bearing on the accuracy of the translations of the Hebrew OT Scriptures that we are discussing here.

But if there was a gap like I believe then they were not in this world but before man,neither did they co-exist because God created man and woman in Genesis 1 and "bara" is used which means they were new creations that had never been created before.

So... if we can demonstrate from science that neanderthals and modern humans coexisted, would that convince you that the Gap theory contradicts Science?

In Genesis 1:26 God also uses 'asah' to describe the creation of mankind. In fact God uses the word 'asah' in Genesis 1:26 before Moses uses the word 'bara' in Genesis 1:27.
In your opinion what is the implication of God using both 'bara' and 'asah' to describe the creation of mankind in Genesis 1:26-27?

As far as your point about bara,asah and male I'd actually like you to elaborate on it more when you can.Because it would be interesting to me to compare interpretations.

Let's start with where we are actually pretty close.
bara means to make or create with the implication of creating something new. So when bara is used I think it is reasonable to understand that the use of bara means that something new is happening.

The two that you are way off on are asah and male
asah is a very generic word that means to do something or make something. asah does not have the implication of newness that bara does. But it is totally false to assert that asah means to recreate or restore something. You won't find that in any lexicon.

We discussed male over and over again. male means to complete or fill. Putting aside the meaning of the English word 'replenish' for the moment. It is totally false to assert that the meaning of male means to 'refill'.

About "bara" in Genesis 1:21 I told you bara is only used 3 times in Genesis 1 and that is one of them times but "asah" is also used with certian life like in Genesis 1:25 so that new life and not new life was produced by God.

Here's the problem with your interpretation...
The creation of the first animal life by God uses the word bara (which we both agree implies something new). On day 5 God creates marine life and birds.

On day 6 God makes (asah) animals that live on the land.

According to the Gap theory understanding of bara and asah, all marine life and birds were created (bara) as something new on day 5 and therefore according to Genesis 1, marine life and birds could not have existed in a hypothetical pre-Genesis 1:2 world.

Since the use of bara in Genesis 1:21 indicates that marine life and birds did not exist prior to day 5, then that means that anything that coexisted with marine life and birds would also have existed after day 5 and not in a pre-Genesis 1:2 world.

All by itself, the use of bara in Genesis 1:21 totally destroys the Gap Theory.

abelcainsbrother wrote:
DB I have no problem discussing this with you further but you must realize that we are not enemies because we disagree over a creation interpretation.We are brothers in Christ discussing these things and I think it is important to remember this.

I agree...
And it is precisely because I consider you to be a brother in Christ, that I am spending time trying to show you what Scripture actually says. And I am especially concerned about a brother in Christ distorting what Scripture says in an effort to defend an unScriptural tradition.

The hebrew lexicon I looked at when I was researching this said that the hebrew word "male" can mean either fill or refill and not just fill.

I am going to challenge you on that.
Please give me the name of or link to that lexicon. I am unaware of any lexicon anywhere that translates male as "refill". I would like to check out the credentials of one that does.

I'll admit though that I prefer the Alexandrian text over the Byzantine Catholic text.For instance the KJV was translated from Alexandrian text,while these newer translations used the Catholic text(byzantine text) instead.

Going off on a tangent here, but you have it backwards.
1. The King James NT is based on the the Textus Receptus that Erasmus (a Roman Catholic) put together which is based on the Byzantine text family.
2. The 'modern' translations generally use the older Alexandrian Text for their translations of the NT.

However, the difference between the Alexandrian and Byzantine Greek NT Texts have very little bearing on the accuracy of the translations of the Hebrew OT Scriptures that we are discussing here.

But if there was a gap like I believe then they were not in this world but before man,neither did they co-exist because God created man and woman in Genesis 1 and "bara" is used which means they were new creations that had never been created before.

So... if we can demonstrate from science that neanderthals and modern humans coexisted, would that convince you that the Gap theory contradicts Science?

In Genesis 1:26 God also uses 'asah' to describe the creation of mankind. In fact God uses the word 'asah' in Genesis 1:26 before Moses uses the word 'bara' in Genesis 1:27.
In your opinion what is the implication of God using both 'bara' and 'asah' to describe the creation of mankind in Genesis 1:26-27?

As far as your point about bara,asah and male I'd actually like you to elaborate on it more when you can.Because it would be interesting to me to compare interpretations.

Let's start with where we are actually pretty close.
bara means to make or create with the implication of creating something new. So when bara is used I think it is reasonable to understand that the use of bara means that something new is happening.

The two that you are way off on are asah and male
asah is a very generic word that means to do something or make something. asah does not have the implication of newness that bara does. But it is totally false to assert that asah means to recreate or restore something. You won't find that in any lexicon.

We discussed male over and over again. male means to complete or fill. Putting aside the meaning of the English word 'replenish' for the moment. It is totally false to assert that the meaning of male means to 'refill'.

About "bara" in Genesis 1:21 I told you bara is only used 3 times in Genesis 1 and that is one of them times but "asah" is also used with certian life like in Genesis 1:25 so that new life and not new life was produced by God.

Here's the problem with your interpretation...
The creation of the first animal life by God uses the word bara (which we both agree implies something new). On day 5 God creates marine life and birds.

On day 6 God makes (asah) animals that live on the land.

According to the Gap theory understanding of bara and asah, all marine life and birds were created (bara) as something new on day 5 and therefore according to Genesis 1, marine life and birds could not have existed in a hypothetical pre-Genesis 1:2 world.

Since the use of bara in Genesis 1:21 indicates that marine life and birds did not exist prior to day 5, then that means that anything that coexisted with marine life and birds would also have existed after day 5 and not in a pre-Genesis 1:2 world.

All by itself, the use of bara in Genesis 1:21 totally destroys the Gap Theory.

In Christ

That is not my understanding of the Alexandrian text and the byzantine text.You're still defending a young earth interpretation eventhough you claim to be an old earther.I have showed you a few examples of how the KJV gives an old earth interpretation.Why are you defending a young earth interpretation when you're an old earther?

I go by God's word first not science.Now if you're going to look at the evidence of neanderthals and humans co-existing by looking at the evidence from an evolution point of view then to me you're putting science before God's word. I reject evolution so I do not look at the evidence from an evolution view point.I thought Day Agers rejected evolution too,yet they look at the evidence from that perspective? Why if you have problems with evolution? No need to going by this interpretation.I go by this interpretation instead and so they did not co-exist with man. It is you with the problem if you try to have neanderthals and hominids before man,not me.And yet I'm looking at the same evidence just interpreting it from a biblical point of view.I do not agree with history based on evolution I'm going by God's word first.

Nope! The word MAKE in Genesis 1:26 is not "asah" it is a different hebrew word.We are only focused on the hebrew words "bara" and "asah" based on Genesis 2:1-4 and then applying it when we read Genesis 1.You are focusing on other words besides "bara" and "asah".We are going by Genesis 2:1-4.

You're also using a strawman against the Gap Theory interpretation by claiming that we believe certian life could not have existed because "bara and "asah is used.Not true and it is a strawman.We know that from the context of what was created and made that life existed before but it is new life when "bara" is used and not new life when "asah" is used. In both cases where they are created or made it says "after their kind" so it is based on life that had existed before in both cases,but some of it is new and some of it is not new. Now I know you're going to claim that "after their kind" means reproduction or that it was God deciding how it was created or made but that is not what it says or implies if you read it in english.They are created and made after their kind so that life existed before.Read Genesis 1:24 and Genesis 1:25 and read it as it is and don't change it.This gets overlooked when reading Genesis 1 and I overlooked it for years until I learned the truth about it.Also just because "bara"means something new and "asah" does'nt does not imply that there was no life when created is used like you imply that we do not believe or claim as Gap Theorists but the word "asah" tells us there was life before this life and so it would apply when "bara" is used also.

Even if you want to use a strict definition of "bara" and "asah" and ignore Genesis 2:1-4 then we can still claim that when you see "bara" it is new and when you see "asah" it is not new so that you cannot say the stars were new in Genesis 1:16.We can say they already exist. But the word "asah" means to do work so God worked on the stars which implies restoration.I'm not trying to offend you but you seem to have a problem with the fact that Gap Theorists focused on Genesis 2:1-4 and realized the difference between "bara" and "asah" by studying this out and then applying it to Genesis 1.You have not addressed this either. But the Gap Theory is based on the bible not science or what man says.Science just so happens to line up with this interpretation if you'll look at it from this biblical interpretation.

And again if you're going to insist that "male" means fill only. Then you're going to translate it wrong in Genesis 9:1. If you make it fill there? It is the wrong translation in english because replenish is the correct word there because it was after Noah's flood. The bible tells us only eight people survived Noah's flood so "replenish" is the correct translation just like in Genesis 1:27 based on hominids and neanderthals before man. So in both cases "replenish" is the correct translation.So that by insisting you're right the KJV still translates it correcty by using the word "replenish" instead of fill and it is correct in english and not correct if you translate it "fill". The KJV translators got it right and is a better translation in english and it shows what they believed at the time too and were implying.They were old earth creationists,they were not young earth creationists.I would think this would be important to fellow old earthers.This to me proves that "male" can mean "fill" or "refill". If you've really looked into this and looked at hebrew lexicons I'm surprised you insist that "male" means "fill" only.

Hebrews 12:2-3 Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith;who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross,despising the shame,and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.

2nd Corinthians 4:4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not,lest the light of this glorious gospel of Christ,who is the image of God,should shine unto them.

DBowling wrote:
Here's the problem with your interpretation...
The creation of the first animal life by God uses the word bara (which we both agree implies something new). On day 5 God creates marine life and birds.

On day 6 God makes (asah) animals that live on the land.

According to the Gap theory understanding of bara and asah, all marine life and birds were created (bara) as something new on day 5 and therefore according to Genesis 1, marine life and birds could not have existed in a hypothetical pre-Genesis 1:2 world.

Since the use of bara in Genesis 1:21 indicates that marine life and birds did not exist prior to day 5, then that means that anything that coexisted with marine life and birds would also have existed after day 5 and not in a pre-Genesis 1:2 world.

All by itself, the use of bara in Genesis 1:21 totally destroys the Gap Theory.

You're still defending a young earth interpretation eventhough you claim to be an old earther.I have showed you a few examples of how the KJV gives an old earth interpretation.Why are you defending a young earth interpretation when you're an old earther?

I'm not defending the Young Earth tradition. That's yet another factually false statement that you've made in this thread. I even defended the Day-age position to a Young-Earther in this very thread.

I go by God's word first not science.

Then do you agree with me that the use of bara in Genesis 1:21 destroys the Gap Theory all by itself?

Nope! The word MAKE in Genesis 1:26 is not "asah" it is a different hebrew word.